People For Green Space Faults Consultant’s Report on Park’s Need for Tower Revenue

By on November 6, 2015 10:27 pm in brooklyn bridge park, Development, Real Estate

People for Green Space/Save Pier Six, the advocacy group that opposes building two high rise residential buildings on the uplands of Brooklyn Bridge Park’s Pier Six, near the Atlantic Avenue entrance to the park, have released an open letter to the members of the Brooklyn Bridge Park Corporation’s board of directors. The letter argues that the conclusions drawn by consulting economist Barbara Denham, a former employee of the Empire State Development Corporation, which purport to justify the park’s need for revenue from the two buildings, are based on flawed data and assumptions. Among the defects alleged in Ms. Denham’s report are: discrepancies in tax data; misleading selection of what are considered comparable residential buildings for the purpose of projecting revenues; and underestimation of revenues from commercial rentals in Empire Stores. According to this Eagle story, the critique of Ms. Denham’s study is largely the work of Henry “Ren” Richmond, a Wall Street financial analyst, member of the board of People for Green Space, and resident of One Brooklyn Bridge Park. The Brookyn Bridge Park Corporation has promised to respond to the critique; we will report on their response when it is released.

Share this Story:

, , , , , , , ,

  • Willow Street Watch

    As if those darlings are going to listen to ANY kind of logic or local area feedback.

    This what’s wrong with many of groups trying to deal with the real threats to the neighborhood. After totally failing in real terms in the legal areas now, what? this and other Heights groups think the BBP leadership are going to entertain arguments that they shouldnt get the cash flow they want out of a scam that was SET UP to build high cash flow lux housing!

    See, this is what’s WRONG with the present would be “leadership” in the Heights. Wrong methods and lack of insight. Many groups want to be recognized as a lead organizations_ or a very important figures in the defense of the Heights. But they lack the insight to see what they are doing wrong and what should be done.

    Worse, they take the space really competent groups can and should occupy.

    The present would be leadership continues ineffective attempt to appeal to the government and entrenched power groups. Never do they try to place some real penalties on any of the destructive activities which are now at a point threatening to remake the Heights into an unrecog- sizable shadow of its former self.

  • Roberto Gautier

    We all see flaws in attempts by established groups to alter the course. That is not new. The stakes are higher as time goes on. Strategies based on appealing to those who benefit from development catastrophes will obviously have poor results. Political leaders are mostly ineffectual: look at our loss of LICH and the building boom in Brooklyn Bridge Park. Sincerely, besides criticizing, do you have a plan?

  • http://selfabsorbedboomer.blogspot.com/ Claude Scales
  • Sean

    More than just a resident of One Brooklyn Bridge Park, Henry “Ren” Richmond owns a penthouse overlooking these sites! His view is threatened. Not surprising the results came back the way they did…

  • Willow Street Watch

    Yes, I and many other thoughtful Heights residents do:
    This, briefly is J-law number six:

    The key is place real penalties on destructive or harmful behavior. Not only for the individual or immediate group of perpetrators but to fashion a kind of larger cloud of consequence which considerably effects the entire community of social or legal criminals who have originally propagated the atmosphere the individual or group arose out of This especially applies to figures higher or better established in the parent antisocial or directly criminal sectors which allowed, encouraged or gave rise, directly or indirectly to the activities of the person or group doing harm to your community or your interests.

    I isolated this very basic theory of human conflict in the mid sixties..

    As applied to our current crisis, you need to develop disincentives which usually take the form discovery of significant wrong doing either of the person or group attacking your interests or better for these individuals AND in the higher ranks of the activity community out of which the attacking group arose.

    You are doing none of this, as a consequence you are continuing to lose…

  • Willow Street Watch

    For example, you are not seeking legal quality evidence of questionable or, more importantly, criminal behavior. This can include major civil or code violations to force agencies outside of traditional law enforcement to act. Again, you’ve done none, or very little effectively, of this. It’s no wonder why, you are still losing.

  • StudioBrooklyn

    Damn Disqus for only permitting me one upvote!

  • Solovely

    I see you spread your attacks. The Park Corp has consistently attacked Ren’s reputation, rather than his analysis.

    We will look forward to the Park Corp explaining the report’s numbers with regard to Ren’s challenges and the City Finance Dept records.

    Our community’s future is lucky to have Ren’s generous, passionate analytical contributions. If you knew the number of hours he has put into this… this is hardly a financial return proposition. He’s a tree-hugger ;)

    The Park Corp’s paid consultant seems to have had no passion for truth at all. Why don’t her numbers make sense? Why not explain to us, then? Why do you believe in her report?

  • Roberto Gautier

    Three minutes, seven seconds of magnificent commentary. Thank you. I recommend that you post this youtube snippet in other places, including schools, offices of elected officials, churches, temples, mosques, community organizations, including BRIC.

  • Willow Street Watch

    See what you’re all doing now? You’re engaging in personalities and critiques of individual actions.

    Go back and really read what I wrote above; you need to move to formulate a general systemic campaign which acts on both the individuals who are endangering your living space and way of life and the parent activity community who originally produced the conditions which allowed those doing destructive acts towards your interests.